Politically Motivated Assault on My Constitutional Rights Must Cease.

By Hlaudi Motsoeneng SABC Group Executive for Corporate Affairs

Ordinarily I have a fairly thick skin and a high tolerance level for criticisms which comes
naturally with the work I do for the SABC. My bold and uncompromising steps in driving
transformation in the broadcasting industry has attracted detractors and supporters alike. I am
writing to register my strenuous objections to the unfounded attacks on my Section 23
constitutional rights to fair labour practices perpetrated by politicians of all hues. I obtained
my employment at the SABC through hard work, dedication and qualifications. I successfully
completed the Leadership Development Programme, Gordon Institute of Business Science
(GIBS): NQF Level 7, the National Certificate in Generic Management, (Prodigy): NQF
Level 5 Higher Certificate and the Thompson Foundation Certificate in Radio Journalism;
Analysis of Contemporary Social Issues (University of Witwatersrand). I have played many
leadership roles as Board Member for the SABC, SABC Foundation and
Local Organising Committee (AFCON). I also serve as a member of the Regenesys Business
School Advisory Council. Regarding transformation I pioneered the empowerment of local
musicians and artists by introducing the 90% local music initiative on all the SABC Radio
Stations, as well as 80% local content across all SABC Television Channels. I have engaged
academia and have presented lectures on Leadership and Transformation in Business Schools,
for example University of Witwatersrand, Regenesys and University of Limpopo. Parts
of my public lectures were incorporated in the curriculum as a Professional Certificate in
Government Communications and Marketing by the Wits School of Governance. Those
fuelled by the malignancy of bigotry have ignored all these higher achievements and wealth
of experience and have focused on the untruth that I lied about my matric certificate. I was
cleared at a Disciplinary Hearing where it was established beyond doubt that I didnt lie about
the existence of my matric certificate.

Against this background, the announcements by the DA, Minister Jeff Radebe and ANC
Chief Whip Hon. Mthembu about my return to my position as SABC group executive for
corporate affairs would not warrant a response from me. But exceptional circumstances
demand a response their pronouncements are legally unsound, demonstrably
false and malicious, they have a direct adverse impact on my constitutionally guaranteed
rights to equality, dignity and fair employment practices, they are defamatory and have farreaching consequences for the SABC and for me as a citizen. It is patently unfair,
mischievous, and disingenuous for politicians to undermine court rulings through legally

suspect interpretation which violate the constitutional principle of legality, and challenges the
constitutionally assigned judicial authority of our courts.

Members of our society have been thrown into a frenzy of speculationabout court rulings
which the DA and some politicians have not bothered to read or understand. First is
the explicit Schippers judgment whichrequires no further interpretation. There the
DA applied for an urgent interdict and sought to have me immediately suspended from my
previous position as the Chief Operations Officer (COO) of the SABC pending
the finalisation of disciplinary proceedings to be brought against me by the Board of the
SABC. Judge Schippers granted the order expressly ruled: I make no findings on whether
or not Motsoeneng is guilty of improper conduct, maladministration or abuse of power.
That is the function of the disciplinary tribunal. Schippers ordered the SABC to
institute disciplinary proceedings against me. Most importantly, the judge specified what
charges were to be included in the charge sheet. He also ordered that an independent person
preside over the disciplinary proceedings. The SABC subsequently complied fully with the
letter and spirit of Judge Schipperss judgment by convening a disciplinary tribunal over
which independent Advocate Edeling SC presided. The proceedings were open to the public,
witnesses testified under oath and I was found not guilty of all charges against me. It
is an outrageous act for Hon. Mthembu and Minister Radebe to mislead the public by
implying that there is an adverse court judgment against me. They concocted their own
phantom judgment and falsely impute words to our judges in a manner that impugns our
judiciary.

The second court judgment against the SABC and Minister Muthambirelates to my
appointment as permanent COO in July 2014. The DA applied for my appointment to be set
aside because disciplinary proceedings had not been completed against me. Judge Davis in
the Western Cape High Court declared my appointment as COO while there was an
outstanding disciplinary proceeding to be "irrational" and unlawful. Most
importantly Judge Davis stated .... As indicated earlier, this case is not
about Mr Motsoeneng. Mr Maenetje, on behalf of first to third respondent, submitted in
his careful argument that there is no basis by which this court could determine the outcome
of this disciplinary hearing. Accordingly, if Mr Motsoeneng is acquitted of all of
the charges which are to be determined by a disciplinary tribunal, it was possible that he
could then be considered for appointment as a permanent COO of the SABC. In other
words, it would be a bridge too far to grant the applicant relief within the terms sought,
namely to direct the Board to recommend the appointment of suitably qualified COO within
60 days of the order of this court and hence ignore the outcome of the disciplinary process.
(Paragraph 52). Contrary to the contrived assertions by the politicians and sections of the
reactionary media, the judge expressly ruled that this case is not about Mr. Motsoeneng and

refused to preempt the disciplinary proceedings. Judge Davis unambiguously ruled that the
outcome of the disciplinary proceedings could not be ignored when it came to the
permanent appointment of a COO of the SABC if I were acquitted of all charges I would
qualify for consideration. That is something my detractors cannot live with!

Judge Davis also remarked at para. 53: Much has been made by respondents
of Mr Motsoenengs achievements at the SABC and his unique ability to be the COO of the
SABC. If it is properly shown that none of the allegations made against him are
sustainable, it would be unfair and, hence premature at this stage, to preclude him from
such consideration. In summary, it is preferable to allow the relevant disciplinary
proceedings to run its course and to reflect this finding in the order. One wonders what
legal yardstick Minister Radebe or Hon. Mthembu are using to arrive at their outlandish
misreading of this very clear court ruling. Even worse, their contrived misreading deliberately
ignored Judge Davis scrupulous observance of the rules of fairness and due process. They
have substituted the carefully reasoned court judgment with their prejudiced
pronouncements. Such politically-driven public vilification campaign and unlawful removal
from my employment will be vigorously resisted and challenged in court if need be.

All fair-minded observers know that no court in South Africa has ever ruled that I am
not appointable as COO or unqualified for senior executive positions at the SABC. All extant
court judgments ordered that disciplinary tribunal must be convened to adjudicate the raft of
allegations levelled against me. The SABC complied and in December 2015 I was cleared of
all charges against me after an internal disciplinary hearing ordered by the courts.
Both Minister Radebe and Hon Mthembu have relied on an alleged SCA judgment for
their attacks on the SABC and violation of my constitutional rights. In September 2016, The
SCA dismissed SABC and Minister Muthambis application for leave to appeal Judge Davis
ruling that my permanent appointment as COO should be set aside. The laconic SCA order
reads: The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs on the grounds that there is
no reasonable prospect of success in an appeal and there is no other compelling reason why it
should be heard. This reaffirms Judge Davis ruling in its entirety.

Hon. Mthembu and Minister Radebe have opted to ignore the court judgments
and the disciplinary ruling in which I was acquitted in their calculated tactic to subject me to
torture of public condemnation. For a member of parliament, Hon Mthembu has made an
alarming and very embarrassing claim which betrays his ignorance of
basic labour law. He claims I am a non-employee of the SABC and purports to rely on

court judgments for his outlandish statements. Every shop steward know the basic rule that
an employer may not take an adverse action against an employee because the employee has
been acquitted of all charges at a disciplinary hearing. Further, it is perverse to insist that
such acquittal renders the employee ineligible for continued employment in any capacity with
the SABC. The public expects a trained lawyer and former Justice Minister to familiarize
himself with these abecedarian principles of labour and administrative law.

The extant court judgments are clear and unambiguous they need no interpretations but full
compliance. The SABC has complied with the order for a disciplinary process and I was
acquitted. In any event, no rational person can claim that the SCA decision upholding a
Davis ruling that my permanent appointment as Chief Operations Officer (COO) before a
disciplinary hearing was unlawful would automatically preclude me from employment as
Group Executive for Corporate Affairs, a position I previously held.
Unfortunately politicians such as Hon. Mthembu have created a quandary for the SABC
they urged the broadcasters board to abide by the SCA ruling but assiduously avoid the
wording of the exact ruling relied upon. They pay lip service to the constitutional principle
of legality while at the same time advising SABC to commit unlawful acts and ignore
verdicts of disciplinary tribunals separately ordered by two judges. They pontificate about
the need to avoid challenging the constitutionally assigned judicial authority of our courts but
conceal that they are deliberately ignoring and undermining the extant judgments. The
undeniable fact is that the disciplinary tribunal which cleared me was a direct outcome of two
court judgments now confirmed by the SCA. The SABC may not flout the court orders or
succumb to political pressure. The rule of law which binds the SABC is not the rule of the
political mob politicians, coupled with the reactionary media and anti-transformation
NGOs may not pressure independent public institutions to ignore verdicts simply because
they dislike them.

It is not debatable that I have championed transformation in and out of the SABC in an
attempt to create equity; I have radically implemented gender equality in the EXCO. In
addition to promote equity I have ensured that freelancers contracts of employment are
extended from one year to three years. Freelancers who work over 40 hours a week have
been given permanent employment. Ive enforced the supply of local of content by emerging
production houses & more importantly those owned my persons with disabilities ill continue
to drive the transformation of supply of IT infustructure to bring black suppliers in the fold. I
have also advocated for all languages to be treated equally on all the sabc platforms. Im
aware that my efforts towards transformation are not appreciated by many outside the
organization who selfishly continue benefiting from these ever green supply arrangements